This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

Dangerous dogs and their owners in Toronto may be publicly shamed

A new report is proposing dogs who bite people or other pets be identified as “dangerous” via tags — and signs on their owners’ property.

Marvin the corgi poses on King St. W. with owner Michelle D'Ascenzo, who worries that a proposed city bylaw would unfairly stigmatize or label a dog after just one biting incident. (Jackie Hong / Toronto Star) | Order this photo

It’s not enough for dog owners to have to apologize for their pets’ loud barking and public defecation these days.

A report recommending changes to the existing Toronto Municipal Code is proposing publicly shaming dog owners whose pups are guilty of biting humans or other pets, requiring them to put a warning sign on their property. And the canine itself will also have to wear a dog tag declaring its pariah status.

Around 230,000 dogs live in Toronto, most without any problems, but the report is trying to give the city more teeth when it comes to dealing with dogs that affect public safety.

“What we’re putting forward (as a definition) for ‘dangerous dog’ is a dog that has severely bitten a person or a domestic animal” even once, said Toronto Animal Services manager Elizabeth Glibbery.

Vote:

Article Continued Below

Dogs that have given non-severe bites to people or domestic animals twice will also be considered dangerous under the amendment, as are any dogs already subject to a muzzle order. The goal, said Glibbery, is to “protect people from dog bites and to hold the owners accountable for their dogs’ behaviour.”

The report proposes that homes where dogs live that have been deemed ‘dangerous’ must prominently display a warning sign. And beyond the beast’s home turf, the dog tag will tell strangers of its past.

“The dog tag will be obvious; it will likely be coloured so you can identify it at a distance,” said Glibbery.

The amendment will also give the city access to the outside of any property where a dog is living, a measure Glibbery said is primarily to ensure the proper treatment of animals.

But is the city barking up the wrong tree?

“I think I’m glad that Toronto is not considering it a breed-specific situation, but a little concerned about what is a domestic animal and calling a dog a dangerous animal because it ran after a pet bunny or a guinea pig,” said Naomi Kane, the chair of the Responsible Dog Ownership Committee at the Canadian Kennel Club.

“It’s really about education and people understanding what they have on the end of the leash,” added Kane. “So part of being a responsible dog owner is knowing what you’ve got.”

Dog owner Khadijah Guillume said Wednesday she thinks the identification measures would be unnecessary, especially if the dog doesn’t have a history of aggressive behaviour. Her pit bull-Dalmatian mix, Diamond, is friendly and has never bitten anyone, Guillume said, and she would be “upset and bothered” if Diamond were to bite in self-defence and then be classified as dangerous.

Khadijah Guillume says she has never had a problem with Diamond biting anyone or another animal, but thinks the proposed bylaw amendment would be excessive, if the dog in question doesn't have a history of aggression. (Jackie Hong/Toronto Star)

“It could have been, maybe something happened, she sensed something with the human she didn’t really like. . . . I wouldn’t want to put up a sign and I would probably feel like it’s unnecessary, you know? She wouldn’t need a special collar, it would probably just be that one incident and one time only.”

Guillume added that she lives in an apartment and wonders where she would post the warning sign.

“Dogs are dogs, and it’s situational,” McIntosh said. “If a dog is attacked, it might bite the other dog in return, so would it be labelled if it didn’t start the fight? I don’t think a simple label of ‘dog bit something’ is enough information to warrant labelling a dog dangerous. . . I think if something happens multiple times, perhaps, but on one occasion? I don’t think so.”

Michelle D’Ascenzo, who owns a corgi, said tagging makes sense for dogs who have had “many incidents,” but not for dogs where biting is a one-time offence. “If it’s a vicious attack, that’s one thing, but sometimes dogs use their teeth as a way to tell another dog, ‘Hey, I don’t like what you’re doing!’ ”

Dogs that bite can already be ordered muzzled under city bylaws, but the amendment will introduce clear definitions of what a “dangerous dog” is and how to deal with them, said Glibbery.

The report will be considered by the Licensing and Standards Committee on Sept. 21 and will be open to public feedback until the end of October.

Delivered dailyThe Morning Headlines Newsletter

The Toronto Star and thestar.com, each property of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, One Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5E 1E6. You can unsubscribe at any time. Please contact us or see our privacy policy for more information.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com